The effect of servant leadership, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction and job embeddedness on turnover intentions. An empirical investigation
| Published date | 03 April 2020 |
| Date | 03 April 2020 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-06-2019-0049 |
| Pages | 177-194 |
| Author | Tobias M. Huning,Kevin J. Hurt,Rachel E. Frieder |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The effect of servant leadership,
perceived organizational support,
job satisfaction and job
embeddedness on
turnover intentions
An empirical investigation
Tobias M. Huning
Department of Management, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
Kevin J. Hurt
Department of Management, Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia,
USA, and
Rachel E. Frieder
Department of Management, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to provide insights into the effect of servant leadership on turnover
intentions. The authors investigate the mediating effects of perceived organizational support (POS), job
embeddedness and job satisfaction on the relationship between servant leadership and turnover intentions. In
doing so, the authors seek to make the following contributions. First, the authors seek to provide additional
empirical evidence for servant leadership as an effective organizational theory. Additionally, the authors seek
to establish POS, embeddedness and job satisfaction as underlying mechanisms that transmit the positive
effects of servant leadership.
Design/methodology/approach –The data were collected from a paper and pencil survey questionnaire
provided to employees of different organizations in a metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. The
sample consisted of 150 participants; complete (listwise) data were available for 115 participants.
Findings –The study shows that POS and embeddedness are mediating mechanisms throughwhich servant
leadership is related to employee turnover intentions. The authors found POS and job embeddedness to be
significant mediating constructs which help explain the nature of the relationship between servant leadership
and turnover intentions.
Originality/value –By investigating these constructs in the present framework, we helpto provide answers
to the questions of how and why servant leadership affects employee outcomes. These answers are an
important step towards more fully understanding the complex ways by which followers respond to servant
leadership.
Keywords Servant leadership, Turnover intentions, Perceived organizational support, Embeddedness,
Job satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Servant leadership is based on the premise that leaders subordinate their own interests and,
presumably, those of the organization, for the interests of their followers (Laub, 2004).
Servant leadership as it is known today is credited to the early writings of Robert Greenleaf
(1970) who stated that a leader must first aspire to serve before making a conscious choice to
aspire to lead. Greenleaf was concerned with making the world a better place, calling on
organizations to serve the needs of its members, as well as the least privileged in society,
Servant
leadership and
work outcomes
177
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2049-3983.htm
Received 1 June 2019
Revised 8 November 2019
10 January 2020
Accepted 6 February 2020
Evidence-based HRM: a Global
Forum for Empirical Scholarship
Vol. 8 No. 2, 2020
pp. 177-194
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-3983
DOI10.1108/EBHRM-06-2019-0049
which he deemed to be the best test of servant leadership (Keith, 2012). To be sure, the
definition of servant leadership according to Greenleaf (1970) is:
The servant leader is servant first...itbegins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve to serve
first. Then conscious choice brings out to aspire to lead...The best test, and difficult to administer is
this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer,
more autonomous and more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the
least privileged in society? Will they benefit, or at least not further be harmed? (1970).
Greenleaf’s writingsprimarily answer the questions of what servantleadership is and to some
extent who servant leadersare; this is consistent with the goal of descriptive researchers and
serves as a building block of theoretical development (Bacharach, 1989). Lacking from
Greenleaf’swritings are answers to questions of how, when, whereand why servant leadership
impacts workplace outcomes. The proliferation of servant leadership definitions and
measurement instruments (e.g. Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006;Laub, 2004;Page and Wong,
2000) has likely contributed to these theoretical gaps. In attempts to rectify these varying
perspectives, Van Dierendonck (2011) synthesized the competing frameworks and developed
methodologically sound measurement instruments (Latham, 2014). Nevertheless, critics
continueto claim that servant leadership lacks a theoreticalfoundation and sufficient empirical
support (e.g. Avolio et al., 2009). While business practitioners tout servant leadership’s
beneficial effects (Covey,1998;Hunter, 1998), early claims about servant leadership’spositive
effects were largelyanecdotal (Northouse, 1997). Therefore, the need to morefully understand
how servant leadership is transmittedinto important outcomes remains.
Accordingly, we expand upon Hunter et al. (2013) by examining previously unexplored
mediating mechanisms of servant leadership’s positive effects. Specifically, Hunter et al.
(2013) examined antecedents of servant leadership (i.e. leader personality) and outcomes of
servant leadership (i.e. turnover intentions; engagement). However, while servant leadership
has a demonstrated effect on workplace attitudes and attachments (Barbuto and Wheeler,
2006;Hu and Liden, 2011;Neubert et al., 2008;Walumbwa et al., 2010) and attitudes and
workplace attachments have a demonstrated effect on turnover intentions (Allen and
Griffeth, 2001;Maertz and Griffeth, 2004), less research has been done to examine the
mechanism through which servant leadership influences workplace outcomes. Nonetheless,
given its established association with reduced productivity and disengagement (Argote et al.,
1995;Christian and Ellis, 2014;Van der Vegt et al., 2009), turnover runs counter to
organizations’pursuits of short- and long-term performance.
Therefore, we investigate the mediating effects of perceived organizational support (POS),
job embeddedness and job satisfaction on the relationship between servant leadership and
turnover intentions. In doing so, we seek to make the following contributions. First, we seek to
provide a theoretical foundation for the effects of servant leadership and offer additional
empirical evidence for servant leadership theory. Second, and perhaps more importantly, we
seek to establish POS, embeddedness, and job satisfaction as underlying mechanisms that
transmit the positive effects of servant leadership to employees’turnover intentions.
Together, POSs, embeddedness, and satisfaction may provide important explanations to the
theoretical questions of how, when and why servant leadership leads to auspicious outcomes.
In what follows, we develop hypotheses and empirically examine the transmitting effects of
POS, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction on the servant leadership –turnover intentions
relationship (Figure 1).
Theory and hypothesis development
Servant leadership
Servant leadership emphasizes motivation to serve others and the denial of self-interest
(Liden et al., 2014). Servant leaders accept their responsibility to a wider range of
EBHRM
8,2
178
To continue reading
Request your trial